Dan Burton

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. It is so nice, Mr. Speaker, to see these fine looking young ladies out here today talking about health care. I really appreciate it. It's time that we saw all of you out here tonight. It's really nice to see you and I appreciate you taking the time to be here. There are just a few things, ladies, that you really haven't talked about. You keep talking about this as if this is the only approach to solving the health care problem. You don't mention that for trillions of dollars less, trillions of dollars less, money that we don't have, the Republicans have proposed a bill that would allow people to buy insurance across State lines so they could get the very best rates. We provided a bill that would deal with people to help them get medical savings accounts so they could put their money into a savings account tax-free, as well as their employers, and then they would use that money and they would decide when they needed to go to the doctor and when not. And if they didn't use it, it would build up in the bank account. And if they used it, there would be a major medical policy, also tax-free, that would take them up to an undetermined amount of money, maybe $100,000. You didn't mention that our bill says that you can take your insurance with you from one company to another when you move. And that is what I think most people want. They want to make sure that there is portability. You didn't mention that we want companies, small companies to be able to band together in our bill so that they can buy insurance at the rates that the major corporations do. That is a pretty good alternative. You didn't mention that we want tort reform, which will definitely lower the cost of insurance because there won't be all these frivolous lawsuits by trial attorneys. Incidentally, you don't have any of that in your bill because the trial attorneys you like, because they support you and they support the President. And the trial attorneys have got this bill in their pocket. You don't mention that our bill does cover preexisting conditions, and it doesn't cost as much money. You don't mention that our bill provides a safety net for the people who are uninsured which will deal with a lot of the problems you have been talking about tonight. You don't mention that we're going to have a safety net for indigent people, people who can't afford insurance. And let me just say this: doctors across this country don't want this bill. Hospitals across this country don't want this bill. The people across this country overwhelmingly don't want this bill. Do you know why? Because it's going to cost trillions of dollars that we don't have. And you know who's going to pay for all of this? The budget this year, as I said earlier, is $3.78 trillion that we don't have. This is a new entitlement, and it's going to cost trillions of dollars that we don't have. And we're not going to be able to borrow that money from China and Japan and all of these other countries from around the world for very long. So what are we going to do? We're going to print the money. And if America was watching tonight I'd say, Hey, don't worry about it. They're just going to print the money. So if you got a thousand dollars in the bank and we double the amount of the money in circulation, you still have the thousand dollars, but it's only worth $500 because it will only buy half as much. But who cares? And then, of course, the legislation that's going to cost trillions of dollars in addition to the trillions of dollars that you're spending on everything else is going to cause higher taxes. But, then, what the heck? In fact, in your bill, the taxes are going to go up by $569.2 billion. Oh, that's chump change. Don't worry about that. The American people can afford it. Heck, right now at 10 percent unemployment, I'm sure the American people are saying, Raise my taxes. The small businessman wants you to raise his taxes because if you raise his taxes, he won't be able to hire people, and he may even say, Well, I'm going to take a boat and take my business overseas because we can't handle this anymore because the taxes are too high. But what the heck. Who cares. It's just money. The bottom line is we all want the same thing, and that is to solve our health care problems. But we don't want to give a hole that our kids and our grandkids will never get out of. They'll be paying higher taxes, and they'll be dealing with inflation. And they will look back on our generation and say, Why did you do that to us? Why did you do that to us? And so when you tell the American people all of the things you're telling them tonight about these people are going to be covered and everything else, just tell them this: we have got a plan that will do it, too, and it will do it for a heck of a lot less money. It won't put the government in control of health care and have bureaucrats between people and their doctors, and it won't cause socialized medicine. So tell them that, too, if you would. And just remember this as I leave, I love you, ladies.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I really get a kick out of the Speaker. She thinks the American people don't get what's going on, but they do. The overwhelming majority of Americans don't want this, and they know that she's playing around with the rules here in the House. And so I just want to make one little statement to the Speaker if she is paying attention. Abraham Lincoln, who was a Member of this body a long time ago, said, You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. And if those people on that side of the aisle vote for this turkey, they're going to pay in November.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, one of our best friends in the Middle East, if not the best friend, is Israel. Israel has been criticized by our State Department last week because they were going to build some additional housing in Jerusalem. They have accepted the premise that they shouldn't right now be building housing outside Jerusalem. They have a moratorium on that. I think that was worked out with our government. But as far as building in Jerusalem is concerned, they have always built in Jerusalem, and they have allowed Christians and Muslims and other groups to build in Jerusalem. So I can't understand why the Secretary of State criticized Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister, for allowing the construction of new housing in Jerusalem, because it's always been done and there's never been a prohibition against it. At a time when we should be worrying about what is going on in Iran, a nuclear development program that threatens the entire Middle East and energy supplies that we need in this country to keep our economy going, we certainly should not be criticizing our best friend, Israel. Israel is a best friend. They stuck with us through thick and thin, and we should support them in every way possible.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. You know, tonight, Madam Speaker, I was going to talk about health care. I think that subject's been covered fairly well by my predecessors, but I will be talking about it later this week, like all my colleagues on the Republican side will. But what I'd like to talk about is what my colleague from North Carolina just talked about a few minutes ago, and that's the rules of engagement in the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq. One of the things that really surprised me was that we have three Navy SEALs that are being court-martialed right now for capturing an al Qaeda terrorist in Fallujah, Iraq. And this terrorist took four American contractors, one who was a retired Navy SEAL, he tortured them, he killed them, dragged their bodies through the streets, and then burned their bodies and hung them from a bridge. I think most people in America, Madam Speaker, probably saw that and were horrified that someone could be that inhumane. But this man is an al Qaeda terrorist, one of the leaders over there, and we've been after him for some time. So we sent these three Navy SEALs to get him, and they did their job. These Navy SEALs, and many of the super-trained military personnel that we have, do an outstanding job in going after these people and risk their lives. In fact, in Afghanistan, we lost 19 Navy SEALs doing their job not too long ago when they went after an al Qaeda terrorist. In any event, they captured this terrorist, and they brought him back so that he could be questioned and dealt with. They turned him over to the Iraqi military for a couple of days, and then he was turned back over to them. And then he said that he had been hit in the stomach by one of the Navy SEALs, and he had a split lip. Now, bear in mind that this guy had murdered and tortured four American contractors and hung their bodies from a bridge. And he was complaining because he was hit in the stomach and had a bloody lip. Well, the Navy SEALs said that they didn't do that, and there's several witnesses that said they didn't do that. But one person off in the distance said that he saw some kind of an altercation. And because of that, they're being court-martialed. Now, get this, Madam Speaker. They're being court-martialed for risking their lives and capturing a terrorist who killed and tortured four American contractors and who, we believe, was involved in beheading some other Americans. I can't believe it. I don't understand what the administration and what our Defense Department's doing. We should be going after these people, and we can't go after them with kid gloves. We can't keep--we can't coddling them. These people are terrorists. And my colleague from North Carolina that talked about the rules of engagement--now in Afghanistan we have military personnel over there that are told when and how they can shoot at the enemy who may be firing at them. And I've been told that many of the Taliban and al Qaeda terrorists over there, if they see they're going to be hit or attacked, they'll drop their guns after firing at the American personnel and our NATO allies. It's just crazy. You can't run a war like that. And so I'd like to say to the Defense Department and to the President of the United States, if he were listening--I know I can't talk to him directly because I can only talk to the House and my colleagues. I can't talk to the people of America, even if they might be paying attention. But we can't run a war like this. We have to go after the terrorists, no holds barred. If we catch them and they're terrorists we should bring them to justice or kill them. It's just that simple. And we shouldn't be holding our military personnel like these three Navy SEALs up to a standard that's impossible for them to be able to attain. They have to do their job. They risk their lives. Many of them get killed and come back maimed. I've been out to Walter Reed and to Bethesda, and I've seen the horrible things that happen in war and how they lose their arms and legs and are maimed for life. But they do that to help us maintain our freedom and our democracy, our Republic. And so I hope that somebody in the Defense Department may be listening and paying attention, Madam Speaker, and in the administration. We need to take the gloves off of our men and women in combat and let them know we're behind them 100 percent. And these Navy SEALs should not be court-martialed, as is the case right now. We have sent 140,000 petitions to the Defense Department asking for this case to be dropped. I hope it will be dropped. But we are not going to let this thing go away. We're going to fight for these Navy SEALs until we get them exonerated. If anything, they should get medals for what they did.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Kaytlynn Noggle Federal Life Insurance Equity Act,'' named in honor of the daughter of constituents of mine, Elizabeth and Larry Noggle; and to encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill. I would like to read the e-mail sent to me by Mr. Noggle as I think it sums up the need for this legislation far better than I could. ``Representative Burton, recently my wife, Elizabeth, and I had a stillborn daughter, Kaytlynn Grace on December 19, 2009. We are both Federal employees with the Defense Department and when we looked to see if the Federal Group Life Insurance covered stillborn children, we were told it did not. As you are probably aware, Indiana law requires any child 20 weeks gestation or more to be buried or cremated as if they were a regular person who lived and died, the cost of which ran our family over $2,000 in funeral expenses. As the insurance didn't cover it, this was a large unexpected expense. Since Indiana law requires burial, we had hoped our insurance would cover at least the funeral expenses as we carried the family coverage on our policy. We discovered that for military service members, their life insurance covers stillborn children up to $10,000. While neither Elizabeth nor I expect to benefit from any changes, we request that the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program be modified to include stillborns for all Federal employees, at least equivalent to the Servicemembers group Life Insurance Program. We aren't looking to profit from Kaytlynn's death. We are hoping to bring about a change to help other families in this situation. Thank you Larry Noggle.'' Madam Speaker, Public Law 110-389, the ``Veterans'' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008'' in addition to enhancing other veterans and military benefits, amended the definition of dependent under the Family Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program to include stillborn children. And coverage for stillborn children has been part of the program since November 18, 2009. The ``Veterans Benefits Improvement Act'' did not, however, amend the definition of dependent under the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program. The Kaytlynn Noggle Federal Life Insurance Equity Act simply corrects this imbalance and brings the two programs into parity. Although I do not have an official CBO score on the bill, the costs to the Federal Government should be negligible for several reasons. First, the cost of Basic insurance under the Federal Employees' Group Life Insurance program is shared between the employee and the Government; with the employee paying \2/3\ of the total cost while the Government pays \1/3\. The cost of the Optional Coverage under the program--in other words coverage for spouses and children (including coverage for stillborn children)--is paid 100 percent by the employee. Second, stillbirths are fortunately rare. According to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control, each year in the United States approximately 25,000 babies are stillborn--roughly 1 percent of all births. Consequently, the probability is that the Federal Employees Group Life Insurance program would pay out relatively few claims under the stillborn provision. To paraphrase Mr. Noggle, no one is going to make a profit from this provision. But it will hopefully give Federal families some peace of mind that they won't be made destitute by the tragic event of a stillborn baby. I would encourage all of my colleagues to co-sponsor this critically important legislation.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight to express my strong support of H. Res. 1036, offered by my colleague from New Jersey, Mr. Garrett, which recognizes the contributions of Korean- Americans in the United States. I have always believed that the Republic of Korea is one of America's most committed friends and allies, and the warmth and hospitality extended to me and my wife during our visit there last Spring reinforced my belief that the bonds that bind the people of the United States together with the people of South Korea are as strong today as they have ever been. Furthermore, I stand in fervent support of the more than 22 million citizens of North Korea who have suffered political oppression and severe human rights abuses for far too long under the dictatorship of Kim Jong-il and his father Kim it-Sung. The United States and the Republic of Korea first became partners more than 125 years ago, when we signed a treaty of amity and commerce in 1882. This partnership grew stronger on the battlefield during the Korean War. The South Koreans fought bravely alongside Americans to stay free from the chains of tyranny and communism and have remained a beacon of light and democracy ever since. When countless Koreans were faced with war and poverty, they chose to come to the United States seeking better opportunities. I believe that one of the reasons this bond has endured for over a century and remained so strong is because of the more than a million and a half people currently living in the United States of Korean descent. As noted in the resolution, these Korean-Americans, like countless others before them, have provided to their American communities by building strong families and becoming valuable members, greatly contributing to the arts, sciences, engineering, medicine, government, military, education and the economy in the United States. In addition to these contributions, these Korean-Americans continue to serve as a reminder of our long history together. Furthermore, as this matter is of great importance to Korean- Americans, I would like to take this time to draw attention to the Administration's delay in pushing through various free trade agreements, especially the agreement that is pending with South Korea, which is the biggest U.S. trade pact since the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement. I urge this Administration to implement this agreement without any further delay as it is of vital interest to all and will have enormous economic and trade benefits for both the United States and South Korea. Once again, in accordance with this resolution, and as Co-Chair of the Congressional Caucus on Korea, I would like to both acknowledge and express my gratitude for these important contributions to our society and to this Nation. I look forward to the continued positive role of Korean-Americans in communities all across America, and I look forward to the quick implementation of the free trade agreement with South Korea.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. You know, Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going to come down here and speak tonight, but I saw my learned colleague who's a trial lawyer coming down here to talk. The trial lawyers have been doing very well over the years suing doctors and driving up the cost of medical care because of the suits that have to be paid, and the insurance that the doctors have to buy to protect themselves against malpractice claims is astronomical in some States. In some States, doctors are actually leaving the State or retiring from their practices because they can't afford to pay those premiums and/or they're worried to death that they're going to lose everything they have worked a whole lifetime to attain through a lawsuit. And so it's not a surprise to me that my colleague that was just here, who is a trial lawyer, would be down here talking about the changes that he thinks ought to be made in health care. We have an alternative. Our alternative is to allow small businesses to bind together to buy insurance for their employees at the same rates as a major corporation; to allow small businesses and individuals to buy insurance across State lines so there's more competition in the system; to come up with tort reform, which will limit these astounding settlements that these trial lawyers get. There's a whole host of things that we have talked about putting into legislation that will help solve the problems of health care, but they don't want to talk about it. In fact, what they talk about is that we're the Party of ``No,'' we're being obstructionists, and we don't want to solve the health care problems. We do want to solve the health care problems. And we can solve the health care problems without destroying the free enterprise system. They are for government takeover of medicine. That is socialized medicine. And they want to see the government telling all of us what kind of care we get, who we get it from, when we get it, and what rationing might take place. And there will be rationing of health care if their plan passes. And that's something I don't think the American people want. And then you start talking to the senior citizens. They want to take $500 billion out of Medicare and Medicare Advantage. What's that going to do to the seniors and the health care they're getting right now? That's going to add to the problem that they say they're going to solve. Just putting the government in complete control of health care is not going to be the answer. We have problems that need to be solved. They can be solved. They can be solved within the free enterprise system. We don't want to destroy free enterprise in America. There are those on that side and I believe at the White House that believe government should run everything. They should run health care; they should run energy, like the cap-and-trade bill; they should run the automobile industry. We now have Government Motors that took over General Motors. They want to run the finance industry. And the crown jewel is health care, because health care is one-sixth of our economy. They get that. They're on their way to the government controlling every part of our lives, at least in large part. This is something that we don't believe in in America. We believe in the free enterprise system and the people that have the ability to succeed to have that opportunity, the people who come from nowhere can make money because the system works. And we don't want the government telling us what we can and we can't do. We believe in freedom in this country and not more and more government control. If their health care bill passes, there will be rationing of health care. There will be bureaucrats coming between people and their doctors. And government here in Washington will be making decisions for people's health care. Are they taking care of the other problems we're facing in this country? Are they solving the problems without the costs going through the roof? Their program is going to cost at least $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion that we do not have. And our kids and our grandkids are going to have to pay for that. That's unbelievable that we pass to the next generation all the problems that we face today. We could come to grips with this, and we could solve the problem if they'll sit down and work with us. They keep saying, Well, we're not working with them. They've got about an 80-vote majority in this House. In the other body, they've got 59-41. They can pass anything they want. They've got the guy in the White House. The reason they can't get it done is because you, the American people, don't want it. You don't want government control over our lives, and you don't want socialized medicine. We can solve these problems. And we can do it within the free enterprise system if we just sit down and get the job done. Let there be competition in the free enterprise system and medicine, and we'll solve these problems.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Speaker, I rise today to introduce the ``Congressional Pay Cut for Debt Reduction Act'' and to encourage all of my colleagues to support this bill. Madam Speaker, the American people are angry. They are struggling to hold onto their jobs, to hold onto their houses and to pay their bills. Yet they see Washington spending their hard earned tax dollars indiscriminately. Over the last five years, Federal spending has increased from nearly 20 percent as a share of the economy to 24.7 percent as the government's expenditures jumped from $2.47 trillion to $3.52 trillion--a 42-percent increase. These are the highest levels of spending as a share of the economy since World War II. To make matters worse, much of this spending, particularly the spending spree of the last three years, has been financed with borrowed money. Currently, the national debt exceeds $12.1 trillion (about $40,000 per U.S. citizen). And the spending shows no signs of stopping. Less than a month ago my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, jammed through on a party line vote a bill to increase the government's debt ceiling by a staggering $1.9 trillion; to over $14 trillion. And the President's recently released budget plan for Fiscal Year 2011 and beyond projects the national debt to reach the unprecedented and astronomical sum of $24.5 trillion by 2019. The American people are angry at this reckless spending. At Town Hall meetings across my District, Hoosiers are asking me when Washington is going to stop the madness. They want leadership on this issue; they want accountability; they want to know where the buck stops. Today the buck stops here. The American people are sacrificing to make ends meet for the good of their families. Every department, agency, program and office across the Federal government should follow that example by finding common-sense solutions that will help them save money--by doing more with less, just like the American people are doing. That same principle should apply to, and start with, the House and Senate as well. It is time--in fact it is past time--that the Congress steps up to the plate and shows we are willing to make sacrifices too for the good of our country. That is why I am introducing the ``Congressional Pay Cut for Debt Reduction Act.'' This bill will reduce pay for members in the House and Senate by 10 percent--starting in January 2011 to meet the requirements of the 27th Amendment to the Constitution--block any future automatic increase to member pay, and use the money saved to help pay down our national debt. This would be the first pay cut for Members of Congress since April 1, 1933--during the Great Depression. This bill is unlikely to solve all of our Nation's economic problems but it will show the American people that Members of Congress are willing to sacrifice along with them in these hard economic times. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. You know, Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for my colleague who just spoke. While listening to him, a lot of people in their offices probably would think, Well, we're against the changes in the health care procedures in this country. That couldn't be further from the truth. Obviously, the health care system in this country needs to be adjusted, needs to be changed. But do we want a bill that's 2,700 pages long that's going to cost about $3 trillion a year that we don't have and is going to put the government between people and their doctors, that's going to end up being a socialistic kind of approach to medicine, and which I believe will destroy one of the greatest health care systems in the world--the best health care in the world? I think it's a mistake to approach this from the standpoint that there's only one way to solve the problem, and that is the way that the President wants to shove through the Congress and doesn't want to even talk to the Republicans or the minority about this. We've had all kinds of suggestions: buying insurance across State lines to put more competition in it; allowing small businesses to ban together to get the same kind of rates of major corporations; individual medical savings accounts; making sure that people can take their insurance with them when they go to a new job; preexisting conditions. There's all kinds of things that we've suggested that we support that will reduce the cost of health care and give everybody the opportunity to have health care. And we've suggested these time and again. The President had a bunch of our leaders down at the White House just recently and then he finally ended up saying as he left, Well, we'll leave it up to the electorate; that is what elections are for. Indicating that they're going to push through their plan whether we like it or not. And their plan is going to cost trillions of dollars that we don't have. They're going to have 10 years of coverage with only 6 years of taxes. And so when you take the overall cost and really figure it out, it's not going to cost $700 billion or $800 billion, as they said. It's going to cost about $1.6 trillion, minimum, over the next 10 years. And what are they doing to get these folks votes? I will never impugn the integrity of my colleagues, but I think it's important that the American people know, Mr. Speaker, if they happen to be paying attention or my colleagues in their offices, what is being done to get these votes. In Louisiana, Senator Mary Landrieu is going to get between $1 million and $3 million additional for her State Medicaid population. Vermont's going to get an extra $600 million in Medicaid funding. They want to get those votes so they're porking up a little extra money for them in order to get those votes. At least that's the appearance. Vermont and Massachusetts secured $1.2 billion in Medicaid money, a change that was described as a correction to the current system which exempts those two States because they have robust health care systems. Vermont's Senator Bernie Sanders also boasted he was going to get an investment worth $10 billion to $14 billion for community health centers that the rest of the country will be paying for. Florida and New York and Pennsylvania, they're going to have Protected Medicare Advantage benefits, even as the program sees massive cuts in other parts of the country. Hawaii is getting a benefit. It secured an increase in Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital payments in Hawaii, while the other 49 States pay more for that special benefit. Senator Max Baucus reportedly secured expanded Medicare coverage for victims of asbestos exposure in a mine in Libby, Montana. They're giving these things out to get their votes--at least that's the appearance. Connecticut secured $100 million for a health care facility. Western States secured higher Federal reimbursement rates for doctors and hospitals that the other States don't get in order to get votes. ``Cadillac'' plans: the unions secured a special deal in the Senate bill. It was a $60 billion exemption for union workers from the Cadillac tax on health insurance. Now, while President Obama's latest proposal removes the ``Nebraska deal'' that was scheduled to buy a vote from a Senator there, the unions still get their Cadillac plans. If President Obama is so concerned about public perceptions created with backroom dealing, why didn't he propose to strike all the special agreements, which he did not. And then of course we just heard one of our colleagues, Mr. Matheson, who voted against the health care bill, his brother was just appointed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. Now, I wouldn't impugn Mr. Matheson's integrity at all, but it does look peculiar that they are trying to get his vote and his brother was just appointed to the Circuit Court of Appeals. These sorts of things really bother the people of this country. And at a time when we really need to revise health care and work together, they're trying to buy a plan that is going to lead to socialized medicine.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This may take more than 1 minute, Mr. Cao. But let me just say that I have been in Congress a long time, and this truly is one of the most humbling moments of my career. I was so confident that the Indianapolis Colts were going to beat the Saints that you wagered 5 pounds of shrimp against 5 pounds of Fisher Farms steaks from Jasper, Indiana. And I was so confident that I was going to be eating shrimp, I invited all my friends in and bought a bunch of shrimp sauce. And now I have got enough shrimp sauce for 5 pounds of shrimp and no shrimp. So it is a humbling experience. What really adds insult to injury, though, is your quarterback, Drew Brees, went to Purdue University in Indiana. It is almost unholy for him to do that to us. And the second thing is the fellow that intercepted the pass that won the game for you went to Indiana University. I just don't understand this. The gods just weren't looking at us favorably that day. But in all seriousness, I hope you don't choke on that steak you got from me. I hope you enjoy it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. This is a great time for New Orleans. They have had some real tough times over the past several years. And I think Drew Brees and that team really does them proud. And if any team was going to win the Super Bowl other than the Colts, I am glad it was the New Orleans Saints. So congratulations. But let me just end by saying this: We will be back next year.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, one of the Members that I admire the most is my good friend from Texas, Mr. Poe. He is a real patriotic guy, and tonight he made a great speech on the independence of Texas. One of the things I would like to talk about real briefly is how Indiana had a hand in Texas becoming a free State, a free country. Back when Texas was debating whether or not they should become an independent country and ultimately a State of the Union, we had a real contested election in Scott County, Indiana. The guy that was running for State representative of Scott County went around door-to-door, and he knocked on this one door and a man was in bed, he was very ill and about to die. When he asked for this man's vote, the man said, ``How do you feel about Texas being admitted to the Union?'' The fellow running for State representative said, ``I am for Texas being admitted to the Union.'' And the guy said, ``I am going to vote for you.'' On election day, the man was on his deathbed, and he was literally carried to the polls and he voted for the gentleman who said he was going to vote for admission of Texas to the Union, and he was elected by one vote. He went to the State legislature and there was a great debate over who was going to be the State senator from Indiana. In those days, the State legislature decided who was going to be the Senator. The debate raged on for a long time, and it was decided that the man who was running for senator who wanted to admit Texas to the Union was elected by the State legislature by one vote. He went to the United States Senate and they debated the issue of Texas being admitted to the Union for a long time, and, as my colleague just said, Texas was admitted to the Union by one vote. So when people tell you one vote doesn't matter, I hope they will remember that Texas was admitted to the Union by one vote, as Mr. Poe just talked about a few minutes ago, and the man from Indiana who was the United States senator who was for Texas being admitted to the Union, he was elected to the U.S. Senate by the Indiana legislature by one vote, and the man who was a State representative who cast the vote that put him in the United States Senate was elected in Scott County, Indiana, by one vote. Although I wouldn't want to take credit for Texas being a part of the Union because of Indiana, I did want to say to my good colleague from Texas tonight that Indiana did have a role in electing Texas to the United States of America. So I am very happy that tonight we celebrate the admission of Texas into the Union. And I must say to my colleague, don't ever forget that the United States of America got the great State of Texas because Indiana put a Senator there who voted for Texas by one vote.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I have an amendment at the desk.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. First of all, Madam Chair, I want to thank the Rules Committee for making this amendment in order. It is a very straightforward amendment, and it's one that I think is very, very important because the CIA has been under such intense criticism over the last several months--maybe the last few years--that it's time to let them know and the people of this country know that we really appreciate what they're doing to secure the safety of this country. What the bill does is: It honors the Central Intelligence Agency for its contributions to the security of the United States and our allies; It recognizes the Central Intelligence Agency's unique role in combating terrorism; It praises the Central Intelligence Agency for its success in foiling recent terrorist plots and capturing senior members of al Qaeda; It thanks the Central Intelligence Agency for its crucial support of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq; It commends the men and women who gave their lives defending the U.S.--named and unnamed; and, finally, It urges the Central Intelligence Agency to continue its dedicated work in the field of intelligence gathering in order to protect the people of the United States. I believe that all of us would agree with everything that is in this amendment. But I'd like to add just a couple of things that I've been watching during this debate that really concerns me. There is language in here that is going to, I think, have an adverse impact on the Central Intelligence Agency's agents who are out in the field and doing their job and are trying to protect us against the terrorists. You know, some of the things that they say may be abrasive or objectionable to some of the people they are interrogating. The way this language reads, it could be interpreted to mean that they are guilty of not following the intent of the law in dealing with the terrorists. Also, there are prison sentences for people who are involved in terrorist or torturous activities such as ``waterboarding.'' I would like to point out to my colleagues, many of whom don't know this, waterboarding has been a technique that has been used in the training of U.S. Navy SEALs and our Special Forces people over the years. Now, let me say that one more time. Waterboarding and other techniques have been used in the training of our Navy SEALs so they would know how to deal with an enemy if they were captured, and it's been used by Special Forces military personnel in their training. So it has never been considered torture by our own military personnel. Now, we have three Navy SEALs right now that are being court- martialed, and they are being court-martialed because they captured an al Qaeda terrorist in Fallujah in Iraq. And this al Qaeda terrorist took four American contractors, tortured them, dragged them through the streets, burned their bodies and hung them from a bridge. He also cut off the head of a leading person that was over there gathering news and information for the news media. This guy is really an out-and-out horrible terrorist. Now, when he was captured he was turned over to the Iraqi military for 2 days, and he came back and he said that he had been hit in the stomach and they split his lip, and because of that these three Navy SEALs are being prosecuted. They are being prosecuted in a court martial. What kind of a message does that send to our Navy SEALs, to the people in the field who are capturing and fighting these al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists? What kind of a message does that send? We are trying to send the same kind of message to the CIA operatives who are out there trying to get information that will protect this country and protect the American people around the world against these people who want to destroy us and want to destroy our way of life. It really bothers me, and I do appreciate the House approving this amendment that I have introduced. Obviously it's something that I think is very important. But, in addition to that, I don't believe we ought to be sending a message to the CIA or the Navy SEALs or our Special Forces men and women in the field that we are not going to back them up when they go out and get a terrorist or extract information from them that is vital in securing the safety of the people of this country. One of the al Qaeda terrorists they are going to bring to New York. The main al Qaeda terrorist that was involved in the 9/11 attack, after he was waterboarded about 80 times, and he wouldn't give up information, he finally did. He said that there was an attempt going to be made to fly a plane into a building in Los Angeles. Had he not choked up and given that information, we might have lost another 2,000 or 3,000 people like we did on 9/11. It just seems silly to me and crazy to me that we are not going to allow our intelligence-gathering operatives to do their job. We ought to be supporting them completely day and night in anything they do to protect this Nation. [From the National Review Online, Feb. 25, 2010] While You Are Distracted by the Summit, Obama Democrats Are Targeting the CIA (By Andy McCarthy) The Obama Democrats have outdone themselves. While the country and the Congress have their eyes on today's dog-and-pony show on socialized medicine, House Democrats last night stashed a new provision in the intelligence bill which is to be voted on today. It is an attack on the CIA: the enactment of a criminal statute that would ban ``cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.'' The provision is impossibly vague--who knows what ``degrading'' means? Proponents will say that they have itemized conduct that would trigger the statute (I'll get to that in a second), but it is not true. The proposal says the conduct reached by the statute ``includes but is not limited to'' the itemized conduct. (My italics.) That means any interrogation tactic that a prosecutor subjectively believes is ``degrading'' (e.g., subjecting a Muslim detainee to interrogation by a female CIA officer) could be the basis for indicting a CIA interrogator. The act goes on to make it a crime to use tactics that have been shown to be effective in obtaining life saving information and that are far removed from torture. ``Waterboarding'' is specified. In one sense, I'm glad they've done this because it proves a point I've been making all along. Waterboarding, as it was practiced by the CIA, is not torture and was never illegal under U.S. law. The reason the Democrats are reduced to doing this is: what they've been saying is not true--waterboarding was not a crime and it was fully supported by congressional leaders of both parties, who were told about it while it was being done. On that score, it is interesting to note that while Democrats secretly tucked this provision into an important bill, hoping no one would notice until it was too late, they failed to include in the bill a proposed Republican amendment that would have required full and complete disclosure of records describing the briefings members of Congress received about the Bush CIA's enhanced interrogation program. Those briefings, of course, would establish that Speaker Pelosi and others knew all about the program and lodged no objections. Naturally, members of Congress are not targeted by this criminal statute--only the

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Madam Chair, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. I agree with what the gentleman said about our wounded warriors and how we ought to be giving them all the support that we possibly can, but the reason I took this time in opposition is because the chairman and I couldn't reach an agreement to discuss one of the provisions in the bill. I sincerely feel, Madam Chairman, that we are endangering our capability of getting information from terrorists because we are limiting our CIA and our intelligence officials with this legislation and these procedures that they can use to elicit that information. I know there are some differences of opinion, and I know we have in our hearts the best security that we can think of for the American people, but the one thing that really, really bothers me is we're telling CIA officials--and some of our military people in the field, not with this bill--but we are telling a lot of our intelligence officials and people in the field that they have to be very, very careful and walk on eggs when they are trying to get information from a terrorist, al Qaeda or Taliban terrorist, to make sure that we aren't violating or torturing them in any way. The American people certainly don't want torture, and there is a big difference of opinion on whether or not water boarding, for instance, is torture. But the fact of the matter is if we have another major attack like the one we had on 9/11, the American people are going to come down like a ton of bricks on the people in this House that put restrictions on our intelligence-gathering capability. They're going to say, why didn't you do whatever it took to secure the safety of the people of this country? And because we are putting this language in this bill, we are saying to the CIA and the other intelligence agencies, you've got to be real careful; you've got to make absolutely sure you don't do something that might get you in trouble and might even put you in jail. And when you say things like that to the people that are out there in the field risking their lives, what you do is you intimidate them, maybe not intentionally, but you intimidate them and you stop the possibility of getting all the information that we need to protect this country. Now, I know there is a disagreement; I just talked to some people on the other side. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was water boarded 80-something times, I think, or something like that; and when he first started out, he said, well, you'll find out what's going to happen. And later, after he was water boarded, he said, yes, there was going to be a plane that was going to fly into a building in Los Angeles. Well, that plane, had it flown into a building in Los Angeles, might have killed another 2,000 or 3,000 people. And so the only reason I came here is to just say, let's don't break the legs of our intelligence officers who are trying to protect this country. It's just too important. We ought to be doing everything we can to back them up to make sure this country is safe. Our intelligence people are telling us right now we're likely to have another attack within the next 6 months or 1 year. So we ought to be giving every intelligence agency and every officer we possibly can all the support they need to stop that. With that, I thank you very much for yielding and yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, sometimes I just do not understand this place. We are fighting people who will cut off your head, who will blow up a building and kill 3,000 people with an airplane. They will do anything they can to destroy America. Yet, when we pass an intelligence bill, we want to do everything we can to treat them with kid gloves. It just doesn't make any sense to me. The bill we are going to be voting on tomorrow in the manager's amendment says this: It would define ``cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment'' in intelligence interrogations, and it would provide a penalty of up to 15 years in prison for the use of this treatment during an interrogation. They're talking about our CIA people who are interrogating a terrorist--an al Qaeda terrorist, a Taliban terrorist or somebody who is threatening the security of the United States. I want to read that again. It would define ``cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment'' in intelligence interrogations, and it would provide a penalty of up to 15 years in prison for the use of this treatment during an interrogation. Now, what intelligence agent in his right mind would go that extra mile to get information from a terrorist who had information about flying a plane into a building to kill a couple of thousand people? Because, if he used anything that didn't fit within this category, he could be jailed. He could be prosecuted and could go to jail for 15 years. That's insane. Then it goes on to say that it would also provide a criminal penalty of up to 5 years in jail for medical professionals who enable such activities. Look, I don't believe in torture, and I don't believe in mistreating human beings, but when you're talking about the security of the United States of America, that's number one. That is number one. When we take our oath of office here, we swear to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. If these terrorists are enemies of the United States, we need to do whatever we can to make sure that we get information from them to protect this country. The people who are doing that job frontline are the FBI, the CIA, the DIA, and all of our intelligence agencies. To hamstring them makes no sense to me whatsoever. My liberal colleagues on the other side want to pat them on the head and give them Jell-O for lunch and do all the other crazy things that you should do. They're living better down at Guantanamo than the people in our prisons here in the United States--Americans. Yet we want to make sure that we treat them with kid gloves. Right now, we have three Navy SEALs who are going to be court- martialed because they captured an al Qaeda terrorist in Fallujah, in Iraq, a terrorist who dragged four American contractors through the streets, burned their bodies, tortured them, and hung them from a bridge. In addition to that, he cut the head off of Daniel Pearl, a newsman, and he put his head on a pike. You know, that guy, I'm sure, deserves a little extra sweet treatment, but I don't think so. Because he said he was hit in the mouth, had a bloody lip and got hit in the stomach, the three Navy SEALs who captured him are being court-martialed. It makes no sense. This place is going nuts. We ought to be doing everything we can to defend and protect this country, and that means doing whatever is necessary, with certain limits, to extract any information we can from a terrorist. For us to put language in there like we're going to give a 15-year penalty in prison for a CIA agent who goes a little beyond by using cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment--and, boy, I don't know how you'd define that--what CIA agent is going to want to take that risk? I just don't understand it, Mr. Speaker. We are in a war against people who want to destroy us and our way of life. They are willing to do all kinds of things--fly planes into buildings, do everything else, cut off heads, torture people. Yet we want to make sure we treat them with kid gloves. It makes absolutely no sense, and I will not vote for that bill tomorrow or anything that looks like it.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I've had six town meetings in the last couple of weeks, and if I were talking to the President, I would like to tell him what those people have been saying. Number one, they don't want a government-controlled health care plan. They just don't want it. And second, they want jobs. What we ought to be doing is cutting spending and doing what Ronald Reagan did, and that is cutting taxes across the board. People said that was the wrong thing to do then, but it created 20 years of prosperity because we knew that if people had more disposable income, they would spend it and it would create jobs and a sound economy. Instead, what have we got? Since the Democrats have taken control of Congress 3 years ago, we've got 7\1/2\ million jobs that have been lost. And since the President signed the stimulus bill--the jobs bill-- we've lost 3.3 million jobs. ``It isn't working,'' if I were talking to the President I would tell him. It isn't working. We should focus on what's important now--not the health care bill. We need to solve that problem. But the first thing we need to do is cut spending, cut taxes, and that will create a sound economy.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest problems facing the Middle East and the entire world is the nuclear development program that Iran is involved in right now. The International Atomic Energy Agency in just the last few days has said that Iran is probably developing a nuclear warhead that they could use at some point in the future as their nuclear development program continues to expand. They have 3,000 or 4,000 centrifuges over there refining weapons-grade nuclear material right now. The reason this is important is because it not only affects the United States and our capability to provide energy for this country that will be very important for our economy down the road, but our biggest ally and friend in the entire Middle East is Israel, and Israel right now does not yet have the capability to hit a major underground nuclear development site that may be developing a nuclear warhead that could destroy Tel-Aviv, could destroy much of Israel and kill millions of Israelis who are friends of ours and great allies. It is extremely important that this administration do everything they can to support the Government of Israel in order to make sure that they have the capability and the ability to stop Iran's nuclear development program when it starts to imperil and jeopardize the entire Middle East. Our energy sources that come from there, maybe 35 percent of our entire energy is dependent on the Middle East. If we have a conflagration over there, it is really going to hurt us, but it will hurt our great ally Israel even more. That is why we need to tell Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that we support him, and we are going to give him the material and the equipment necessary to deal with Iran should they continue down this path, and that means the bunker busting bombs that will be able to go down 50, 75, 100 feet underground or maybe 150 feet into a mountainside to knock out a nuclear development program if it imperils the existence of Israel or threatens the entire Middle East. I can't stress how important this is. The leader of Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad, has said numerous times that he wants to see Israel wiped off the face of the Earth. They are developing a nuclear weapons program, and now the IAEA is saying that they are developing a nuclear warhead that will be able to strike should they be able to use their missile program. So we have to pay real attention to what is going on over there and give Israel the ability to do what is necessary, and we should support them in every way possible. If we don't do that, we are going to rue the day that they finish that nuclear development program in Iran. Bibi Netanyahu is going to be here before too long speaking here in the United States. I hope that the President will reach out to him and say, We are going to give you all the tools necessary to be able to stop the nuclear risk that Iran poses over there if we have to do it. The United States and President Obama should work with Mr. Netanyahu to make sure that we get that job done. We certainly don't need a terrorist state like Iran developing a nuclear weapons program with a delivery system that could deliver a nuclear warhead.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. You know, Mr. Speaker, today we had a hearing before the International Relations Committee and one of the subjects that was brought up was enhanced interrogation techniques. And waterboarding was brought up. One of my colleagues said, Boy, that's torture. That's why we shouldn't be using that. Now Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who personally cut the head off of Daniel Pearl, personally killed him, and he was personally involved in the 9/ 11 attacks that killed 3,000 Americans, he was waterboarded. Before he was waterboarded, he said--and I want to read from a CIA memo. It said, ``In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah, without using enhanced techniques.'' Both of them had expressed their belief that the United States population was weak and lacked resilience and would be unable to do what was necessary for preventing terrorists from succeeding in their goals. Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation, he said, when asked about future attacks, simply, ``Soon you will know.'' Soon after he was subjected to the waterboarding, he became cooperative, and as a result we were able to stop an attack that was going to take place in Los Angeles where a plane was going to fly into a building. Now we have said time and again that we don't believe in torture. And I don't believe in torture. But the definition of torture is in the eye of the beholder. They say waterboarding is terrible, and it's torture. But do you know--and I don't think many of my colleagues know this-- that the Survival, Evasion, Rescue, and Escape training for our military personnel--and that's the Special Forces, the Navy SEALs, and pilots that fly in the military--they go through enhanced techniques like this, and they go through waterboarding. They have for 30 years. Now maybe they're stopping it now, but they, for 30 years, since Vietnam, went through waterboarding as a training technique. Nobody called it torture then, and we certainly weren't talking about a terrorist who cut somebody's head off and helped design the attack on the World Trade Center that killed over 3,000 people. CIA Director General Michael B. Hayden said on Fox News Sunday last weekend that the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us, the United States of America, safer. It really did work. And the thing that bothers me, instead of using enhanced interrogation techniques to go after these terrorists to find out what's going on, we're instead bringing them from Guantanamo to New York City. Well, they've stopped that now because it's going to cost $250 million, at least, and the mayor of the city said he doesn't want that to go on. But we were going to bring these terrorists that killed all these Americans and did all these horrible things like cutting off people's heads and hanging them from bridges in Fallujah, and we were going to bring them to New York. And we're providing them with legal help. We're providing them with guidance. And this guy that flew into Detroit and tried to blow up an airplane with 230-some people on it, we gave him his Miranda rights. Then, after that, we went over to his home country and brought his mother and father back so they could talk to him to convince him to talk to the American intelligence people. Is that the way you conduct intelligence gathering--giving them Miranda rights, bringing them to the United States after they've done these horrible things to Americans? They're terrorists. We are in a war against terrorism and within bounds we should use every enhanced technique we can come up with to elicit information from these terrorists before they kill Americans. We should be going after them with everything we have instead of providing legal defense for them. They are not Americans. They're terrorists who want to destroy the United States of America. And we as Americans need to realize that and do whatever is necessary, including using enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding, which we've done with the military--our military--in order to save this country and protect it from terrorism.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States, President Obama, is sending a budget up here that we've just found out about in the last couple of days. It's $3.8 trillion in the fiscal year beginning October 1, and that's about a 30 percent increase in outlays since 2008: $3.8 trillion. The President's budget includes more than $2 trillion in tax hikes at a time when this economy is really suffering with a nearly 20-percent jump in taxes in the first year alone, and it's going to hit tax increases on small businesses, investors, and families, and it's going to violate the President's campaign pledge. The President's budget borrows too much from our kids and grandkids. Under the President's budget, the Federal Government will run a record budget deficit of $1.6 trillion in fiscal year 2011; and throughout the next decade, the deficit will never go below $700 billion a year. At the end of the decade in 2020, it will still be over $1 trillion a year and the national debt's going to double within the next 5 years. We just can't sustain this kind of spending. This President's proposed spending freeze that he talked about is a step in the right direction, but it's only $15 billion. $15 billion out of a budget of $3.8 trillion is less than a drop in the bucket. So when he talks about freezing spending, that's not going to solve the problem. We need budget caps. We need spending caps that will be continual year in and year out if we're going to get in control of spending. The President pushed through the stimulus package which ended up costing over a trillion dollars, and it hasn't helped unemployment at all. In fact, he said it was going to be no more than 8 percent, and it went up to 10\1/2\ percent and it's still over 10 percent right now. The President says he wants to have another stimulus package. He calls it a jobs bill. It's going to cost billions of dollars more, and it's not going to create jobs; it's just going to increase the deficit more. And CBO says that if we pass the energy tax he is talking about because of ``climate change,'' it's going to increase taxes on energy by $870 billion. And then to cap everything off, the President continues to want to bring these terrorists to the United States for trial. These people are enemy combatants. As my colleague, Dan Lungren of California, talked about a while ago, they should be tried in a military court in Guantanamo where people won't be intimidated by them. Can you imagine what it would be like to be on a jury with one of those people? Everybody on the jury would be scared to death that their life is at risk if they render a decision to put those people to death or cause them a great deal of harm. So we really need to deal with them as an enemy combatant. We need to deal with them at Guantanamo with a military tribunal and give them the justice that they deserve. This is what is going on with this administration right now, and I hope that the President might be paying attention--I can't address him because we can't address people outside the Chamber--but if he were listening tonight, I wish he would take all of these things to heart because the American people are very concerned about the direction of this country.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleagues, and I think we are all of one accord when we say we want to see jobs created in this country and we want to see the unemployment rate go down. But the way you do that is the way Ronald Reagan did it when he was President. And he came in when we had 12 percent unemployment and 14 percent inflation. He came in and he cut taxes across the board. What are we doing instead? Well, since January when the President took office, we have spent $73.3 billion that we didn't have on one program. We spent $1.6 trillion, including interest, on the stimulus bill; the omnibus spending bill, $410 billion. If you add interest, that's $625 billion. In June, we spent $106 billion, with a lot of pork in it, on the defense supplemental; and then on the consolidated appropriation bill, the mini-omnibus bill we passed in December, it was $3.5 trillion. And then you include the things that we passed in this House which have not been enacted into law like cap-and-trade. That's $846 billion in new taxes. And the proposed government-run health care program, if it were to pass, it would cost between $1 trillion and $3 trillion. Now, since the opposition party, under Speaker Pelosi, took control of this body, the Federal deficit has increased from $162 billion the first year she was Speaker in 2007 to $459 billion in 2008. And then it went up by a huge amount to $1.42 trillion in 2009. This is just an unsustainable growth rate. And over the last 3 years, we have increased the debt ceiling five times since she took office as Speaker. This is something that's unbelievable. It went from $8.97 trillion in January of 2007 to $12.39 trillion today, which is an increase of $3.4 trillion, or 38 percent, in just 3 years. Now you're talking about spending $3 trillion a year-- more than half of that borrowed money--and we are talking about how we are going to get control of it. Tomorrow night the President is going to be speaking from right there just below the Speaker's lectern, and the President is going to try to address our economic problems. And as I understand it from some of the reports that have come out, he is going to talk about freezing spending, or a partial freeze, over the next 3 years that would reduce the budget by less than 1 percent, or $15 billion, in the first year. Now, don't get me wrong. I am for freezing spending. But when you look at what has happened in the last year or two, especially during the last year, it's unbelievable. We had an 8 percent boost in spending in the omnibus bill the President signed into law in March and a 12 percent boost that he signed in right at the end of last year in December. We're spending money like it's going out of style. Now, what is the answer? The answer is that we get together and realize the way to create jobs is to stimulate the private sector, and that is by cutting taxes, cutting personal income taxes, cutting corporate taxes, cutting capital gains taxes. That will give business, industry, and individuals more disposable income for investment and to buy products. If the government continues to spend like we're doing right now, we're digging ourselves into a deeper and deeper hole, and it is not going to solve the unemployment problem. I heard some of my colleagues down there talking about how things are getting better. We just had 10\1/2\ percent unemployment. Now it's at least 10 percent unemployment. And when you add in those who are working part-time who want a full-time job, it's probably more like 17 or 18 percent of the people that are either out of work or have given up. It's just terrible. So what do we do? We ought to do what has been done by John F. Kennedy in the past and what Ronald Reagan did when he was President. And that is to say, let's cut taxes. Let's give a shot in the arm to the private sector. They create jobs. Government cannot and will not create jobs by spending, spending, spending. Tomorrow night when the President speaks, he will get a lot of applause from probably both sides of the aisle when he says some of the things he is going to say. But the thing that concerns me the most is the ``spending freeze'' he is talking about. It's not really anything but a drop in the bucket. It's not even a drop in the bucket when you talk about a 1 percent spending freeze over the next 3 years, when you're talking about a multitrillion-dollar deficit that goes on and on and on, and you're talking about a spending freeze that is going to save maybe $4 billion or $5 billion. It's just nothing. So I would admonish the President, or suggest to the President, that he start moving toward cutting taxes, stimulate the private sector and cut the huge deficit spending we are facing.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, some people just don't get it. I was reading the Wall Street Journal this morning. And when the Democrat Senators met, one of the aides was asked by a reporter what was going on; and the aide to one of the Democrat Senators said this: ``People are hysterical right now.'' Hysterical? Because the American people realize that this health care bill is an absolute disgrace and a tragedy, and they didn't want it and they overwhelmingly voted against it in Massachusetts, they are hysterical? I would just like to say to that young man and any of my colleagues who really haven't gotten the message from Massachusetts and Virginia and New Jersey: the American people don't like the direction this country is heading in. They don't like the big spending. They don't like all these new socialistic programs. And they don't want the government coming between them and their doctor. And I hope my colleagues will get that message so we can work together to solve these problems facing the Nation regarding health care.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, Massachusetts, Virginia, New Jersey--they have all spoken, and I think they speak for the American people. They want us to try to work out these problems that they're facing together and not keep pointing fingers. It's time for us to get down to the job of creating jobs. They don't want this health care bill. It's pretty darn clear. That was the major issue in Massachusetts. So we need to get together and solve the problems of health care without ramming something down the people's throats from behind closed doors. It's extremely important. They don't want higher taxes; they want lower taxes. They don't want more government interference in their lives; they want less. So what we ought to do is address the problems that are really important right now. The first thing is creating jobs and getting this economy back on track and not to try to ram a health care bill down the American people's throats that they really, really don't want.

Mr. BURTON of Indiana

Mr. BURTON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I believe that probably everybody in the House and in the Senate has someone that they know or knew that had breast cancer or another form of cancer. My first wife, Barbara, died about 8 years ago from cancer. I will never forget the day she felt a lump in her breast. She thought it was a fibrous tissue. She had them before, and she didn't want to go have herself tested. I said, I want you to go to the doctor and have him look at that. She did, and she called me a couple of days later when I was out here in Washington and she started crying and said, I've got breast cancer. Of course, I went back home and we went to the doctor and went through all of the things that you have to go through, including the chemotherapy. For any family that has gone through that, they know how very difficult it is. Had she had a mammogram earlier, she might not have had the breast cancer metastasize and go to other parts of her body. She ultimately passed way. It was a tragic thing to watch that. That is why this bill, although it may sound like just a resolution, is very, very important. One of the things in the health care negotiations that has concerned me a great deal is that there was some talk about limiting mammograms to people 50 and above, and the people between 40 and 50 might not be included in getting mammograms and having coverage for that, either under the health plan or insurance plans. I want to read you a letter from a young lady from my district in Noblesville, Indiana, Tonya Lewis. Here is what she says: ``I was diagnosed with triple negative breast cancer in May of 2008 at age 39. I found this lump myself. I had a baseline mammogram at age 35. It came back clear. I was advised not to have another mammogram until age 40. The radiologist that read my mammogram at age 39 advised me that if I would have had a mammogram at age 36, 37, or 38, most likely I would not have had to have a mastectomy and 14 lymph nodes removed. My cancer spread to my lungs and chest wall after doing chemo and radiation. After completing nine different types of chemo, as of November 24, 2009, I am finally cancer free. Please fight for us breast cancer survivors and the young women in the future. I believe mammograms should be available and paid for by insurance companies at any age.'' When we talk about limiting breast cancer screening to people 50 and above, I think we make a mistake because breast cancer does kill. One in every eight women is going to get breast cancer in their lifetime and it is going to affect families across this country. I think we ought to make sure that we don't start limiting mammograms to only people 50 and above. It has been 40 and above for some time. In this particular case it wouldn't have helped her because she was in her thirties when she developed breast cancer. It is a very, very serious thing, and unless somebody has lived with it, they don't understand how horrible it is to watch somebody pass away going through the travails of cancer. So I want to congratulate my colleagues on sponsoring this bill, and I hope in the negotiations on the health care bill, regardless of how it comes out, we make sure that we take care of the women who are suffering from these things and catch it before it becomes terminal.